Paul Hellyer drops bomb @ hearing on UFO/Aliens in Canada - Deathbed Testimonial

Why do people constantly make claims about how ETs would be proven in a court of law?

The question of whether ETs exist is not one that can (or should) be answered in a court of law. Courts have a purpose. That isn't it.

Here we are looking for scientific proof. That's a different ballgame entirely.

In answer to Cenny and Observing the world:-
The question still stands, why would US inteligence agencies show anyone, never mind Canadians, the most closely guarded secret that could upset the worlds paradigm? There was no need for them to know.
The only reason I could think of would be (knowing that sooner or later they would talk) to muddy the waters. An on-going phsyops operation.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: boncho

The government officials of any country who are aware of the true nature of UFO's know this as does anyone with half a brain. The notion of any kind of disclosure is a dream I'm afraid.

Not to interject Politics..But Hillary Clinton...as well as one of her campaign advisors...have been talking disclosure..

My instinct is to say she is pandering for votes, but logically I don't think the disclosure advocates represent enough of voting bloc to warrant pandering..not sure..

Hillary Clinton Gives U.F.O. Buffs Hope She Will Open the X-Files
www.nytimes.com...

Clinton campaign chair: 'The American people can handle the truth' on UFOs
www.cnn.com...

The second link is interesting because it is Bill Clintons former chief of staff...and Clinton has said he asked for UFO infor while he was in office...Anderson Cooper asks..."Is there evidence of alien life?"...the guy responds "uhh..that's for the public to judge once they have seen all the available evidence"...or something like that.

a reply to: one4all

Wish I could answer this but, alas, I am told I am color blind. So I see alot of shades of colors. Thank you for explaining your reasoning behind the ideas. I am not young but have been open most of my life about the unknowns. I really do want to know the truth out there but feel, as hard as I try, I never will; but I will continue to be open and listen and think about what I read and hear; love the internet but am cautious.
I do appreciate your ability to look at so many differing subjects to tell the story. I'm still listening. Thank you.

Huh? 'It turned out to be a dummy'? In YOUR opinion perhaps. Just because a picture he showed looked the same as some doll, does NOT mean it wasn't real. The CIA has been pulling disinfo campaigns for 75 years. And to focus on that ONE piece of evidence, when there is a veritable MOUNTAIN of it, is simply ridiculous.

As I've already said. Anyone with a whit of critical thinking abilities, who has researched UFOs, KNOWS they exist, are multi-dimensional in most cases, and have been 'visiting' us for at LEAST hundreds of thousands of years. Open your eyes. Just the fact that recent genetic evidence that dozens of the human genes do NOT have any basis in another species on this planet, as CONFIRMED by a number of scientists, shows that there are things in this world that do not make sense, with the current paradigms.

But hey, go ahead and let spelling errors, or the lack of 40 people accompanying Hellyer in a freaking deathbed confession, or any other excuse you want to make to convince yourself it's all not true. SMH. It's amazing that so many people refuse to believe anything, unless they are confronted on mainstream media, but some authority figure they've been brainwashed to believe, before they will accept the truth of anything, no matter HOW MANY deathbed confessions, whistleblowers, physical evidence and all the other circumstantial evidence of UFOs that is right in front of peoples' faces.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: boncho

The government officials of any country who are aware of the true nature of UFO's know this as does anyone with half a brain. The notion of any kind of disclosure is a dream I'm afraid.

Not to interject Politics..But Hillary Clinton...as well as one of her campaign advisors...have been talking disclosure..

My instinct is to say she is pandering for votes, but logically I don't think the disclosure advocates represent enough of voting bloc to warrant pandering..not sure..

Hillary Clinton Gives U.F.O. Buffs Hope She Will Open the X-Files
www.nytimes.com...

Clinton campaign chair: 'The American people can handle the truth' on UFOs
www.cnn.com...

The second link is interesting because it is Bill Clintons former chief of staff...and Clinton has said he asked for UFO infor while he was in office...Anderson Cooper asks..."Is there evidence of alien life?"...the guy responds "uhh..that's for the public to judge once they have seen all the available evidence"...or something like that.

Geez, anyone who votes for Clinton (or anyone for that matter) just because they *might* disclose the alien issue, needs to be prevented from reproducing. We've already got more than enough idiots in the world... And to ignore all the crimes that the Clintons and Bushes have perpetrated, and the fact that though running as a Democrat, there is no functional difference between any Bush and any Clinton as far as RESULTS of office are concerned, and I am gobsmacked that anyone who crows about the Democratic party has the limited braincells to realize what Clinton truly represents.

And sorry about the rant, but geez. John Pedesta is a complete buffoon. Everything he does has an objective, and if anyone thinks he truly just wants disclosure, and is not spouting propaganda with a purpose, hasn't bene paying attention...

a reply to: nomoredemsorreps

That is a whole lot of vitriol from a fairly neutral post I offered on the topic of disclosure.

I am not a Hillary fan, but sad to see a thread go off the rails into partisan hate at the mention of her name.

Any politician proposing disclosure should be able to be discussed around the disclosure topic without the Right/Left screaming starting IMO.

originally posted by: Justso
Yes. I also saw/heard the Canadian official awhile back. I believe the Canadians tried to write it off that he was a bit looney.

Now, the question is why don't we know the truth-what is the government afraid of?

Apparently, NASA shut down their live feed on the 9th because a UFO was entering our atmosphere?

Does anyone know anything about that or can point to me where on ATS it was discussed? Thank you.

Maybe the UFO'S cross the line of sight between the ISS and the ground or they generate RF reflections that mess up transmissions?

I'd imagine that the tech behind a UFO in those days would involve fibre-optics, laser gyroscopes, parallel processing as in supercomputing and GPU'S of today, display systems, not forgetting gravity manipulation. That in itself is going to involve nuclear physics going beyond fission/fusion so it would be classified.

Material science would go into superconducting materials and advanced mathematics going beyond gauge theory, spinors, Higgs fields and the Standard Model.

What if it really is possible to put all the atoms of a large vehicle into a close to massless state. Then everything from ultrafast travel to virtual teleportation would become possible. That would completely change warfare. Even surrounding a vehicle with a plasma gas would block electromagnetic waves from getting through.

A classic, based on Paul Hellyer's appearance on RT,
Extraterrestrials dressed as nuns - Variations on a theme by Paul Hellyer:

originally posted by: stormcell

What if it really is possible to put all the atoms of a large vehicle into a close to massless state. Then everything from ultrafast travel to virtual teleportation would become possible. That would completely change warfare. Even surrounding a vehicle with a plasma gas would block electromagnetic waves from getting through.

you have a point and actually its a done deal.

btw op good thread. will chk out all the links

cheers

How is "Wilbert Smith, who headed the official Canadian government program into flying saucers also made death bed confession to his son James related to what he was shown. According to what James told me, just before he died..." credible in the least?

A guy interviews a guy who is the son of a guy who made a deathbed confession, unrecorded, with no substantiation whatsoever? Did James take notes when his father spoke? A photo? A video? When did this take place? With regards to the Smith deathbed confession, there is not one date in your link to indicate when any of this took place. Surely that is a critical piece of evidence either in the recounting of the events or the recording of such.

originally posted by: Cenny
a reply to: CoffeeInMyHand

The reason that there is no disclosure is because it is Earth-Shattering. Mind boggling run and hide in fear, denial and sheer terror should the truth be known.

What would that be?

Great thread! I suggested an AMA with Hellyer but it didn't seem to generate any interest at all. I find this fascinating and although I haven't read through all your links, I am definitely going to tonight! Thanks for the interesting read and for a jam packed post!

I really don't understand why people dismiss Hellyer so quickly, it doesn't make much sense unless they have knowledge that they are refusing to share to the contrary...

a reply to: Greggers

Why do people constantly make claims about how ETs would be proven in a court of law?

Because the evidence that exists is stronger than evidence used everyday to make judgements in court. Because there has been no proper hearings into this subject in court. Because it's very relevant when a topic is being suppressed on purpose, and kept from the common people

Here we are looking for scientific proof. That's a different ballgame entirely.

No its not. You are here because of cognitive dissonance. You keep blabbing on about "scientific evidence" when there's enough to warrant a demand for disclosure for the evidence that exists which is being held from you.

The only reason you don't have "scientific evidence" is because it's been covered up. There are missing documents in Roswell, Kecksberg and dozens of other cases, which are classified at the absolute highest levels of the MIC.

And newsflash, but "science", soft sciences especially, make determinations all the time on the best available evidence at hand. Two thousand years of documented interaction with UFOs and beings that occupy the UFOs, if the subject was allowed to transpire without political interference, would have a number of 'visitation theories' and they would be the prevailing theory/hypothesis until proved or disproved.

Of course none of that would even be need if every file from every case, listed in this report was not classified.

The brainwashing in effect today is worse than ever in history. Bar none.

originally posted by: crayzeed
In answer to Cenny and Observing the world:-
The question still stands, why would US inteligence agencies show anyone, never mind Canadians, the most closely guarded secret that could upset the worlds paradigm? There was no need for them to know.
The only reason I could think of would be (knowing that sooner or later they would talk) to muddy the waters. An on-going phsyops operation.

Read the book SPYWORLD by Mike Frost. They did exactly this and its verifiable, and in cases where it had nothing to do with UFOs. I think I've mentioned this 2-3 times now in this thread. This is back when Canada's spy establishment was 6 people in a little rented house, but the American's needed the Canadian Embassy for spying on Russians and UK.

This had nothing to do with Aliens or UFOs, but it confirms the modus operandi. They brought him down to NSA HQ I think, this was way back in 70s/80s and he recalled seeing biometrics, which were only supposed to work in theory at the time, but they had it operating in the facility he was in.

But you are looking for a rational or logical explanation. You are here to just pseudo-debunk yourself to bed tonight, because the reality of everything that comes with the revelations is too hard for people to cope with I guess. Idk. Or its just leftover programming from the war on your mind, since the CIA co-opted the media establishment and took over the news wire back in the 50s.

Watch the Matrix, and then MIB...they may as well be documentaries.

a reply to: SargonThrall
Yes, I'm afraid, I am right, Hellyer did not ever personally witness any evidence of aliens, by his own admission. So he is by definition a reteller.

originally posted by: boncho
One doesn't need to witness aliens to realize aliens. Have you ever seen a globe earth? It's ironic, because I accidentally clicked on a "Flat Earth" video on Youtube, and it was simply some guy offering a rational debate on why a Flat Earth is not reality, to a call in. And this guy is some kind of anarchist, Im not promoting his entire belief system or anything like that. But I credit him, because someone called in and literally said "I believe in a Flat Earth" and this guy had the patience to argue in a logical discussion. I was very impressed by his ability to remain neutral.

The point is that nothing Paul Hellyer says adds any additional real evidence to the question of alien visitation.

He is simply some guy who believes in alien visitation. The information he has could have been gained by anyone. Hellyer himself has said that he learned of no secrets about alien visitation during his time as defence minister. He is just like anyone else who believes in alien visitation, and the information he has is not first-hand state secrets; just stories he heard and research he has done as a private citizen -- research anyone could have done.

So the question is this: why should we necessarily believe Paul Hellyer's information just because he is Paul Hellyer? What if my automobile mechanic or my local bread baker came out with these same stories Paul Hellyer has? Would that be worthy of a thread?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
a reply to: boncho

The government officials of any country who are aware of the true nature of UFO's know this as does anyone with half a brain. The notion of any kind of disclosure is a dream I'm afraid.

Not to interject Politics..But Hillary Clinton...as well as one of her campaign advisors...have been talking disclosure..

My instinct is to say she is pandering for votes, but logically I don't think the disclosure advocates represent enough of voting bloc to warrant pandering..not sure..

Hillary Clinton Gives U.F.O. Buffs Hope She Will Open the X-Files
www.nytimes.com...

Clinton campaign chair: 'The American people can handle the truth' on UFOs
www.cnn.com...

The second link is interesting because it is Bill Clintons former chief of staff...and Clinton has said he asked for UFO infor while he was in office...Anderson Cooper asks..."Is there evidence of alien life?"...the guy responds "uhh..that's for the public to judge once they have seen all the available evidence"...or something like that.

The only thing that makes me not think it's pandering for votes is how many ufo people would actually like her? Is the ufo demographic so big that it's worth making yourself seem like a fool to the rest of the electorate?

The truth is more likely a deity than aliens. At least that's what I'd be more inclined to believe

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: Greggers

Because the evidence that exists is stronger than evidence used everyday to make judgements in court.
Because there has been no proper hearings into this subject in court. Because it's very relevant when a topic is being suppressed on purpose, and kept from the common people

Courts are not utilized for determining the legitimacy of ET, or Bigfoot, or Chupacabra. They are for determining a SPECIFIC person's GUILT (or lack thereof) in a SPECIFIC case of wrongdoing where a victim has sustained some type of injury.

If you honestly believe you have sufficient evidence to claim a coverup has caused you a real-world injury, and to prove specific parties are responsible, then I suggest you actually file a case in court.

Otherwise, all this talk of what could or couldn't be proven in court is totally irrelevant.

You keep blabbing on about "scientific evidence" when there's enough to warrant a demand for disclosure for the evidence that exists which is being held from you.

You must have me confused with someone else. I believe this may be the first post I've made about ET, ever. I certainly do not "keep babbling" about scientific evidence.

The only reason you don't have "scientific evidence" is because it's been covered up.

Whether that's true or not, until scientific evidence can be obtained, we cannot say with certainty that the ET phenomenon involves actual ETs.

a reply to: boncho
Sure, if you Ignore the part where I said I was not being insulting. You have written a lot of threads in a few days, including one where you were sure that ISIS was not breaking real artifacts, I simply think you need a break.

One doesn't need to witness aliens to realize aliens.

But that wouldn't be very rational. People wouldn't believe in unicorns without a body, despite the fact that they've been depicted for centuries.
Many of us have witnessed irregular aerial phenomena but without x-ray vision, we can never conclude who - if anyone - piloted the craft. A simpler and more plausible explanation would be human pilots.

What's with this court of law nonsense? Without physical evidence it's all hearsay, opinion, and subjective interpretation.

You keep saying that people who don't believe in the extraterrestrial hypothesis find it "too hard" to "cope with"... are you sure your serious investment in the theory hasn't made you unable to cope with the possibility that it is wrong?

How about people who have truly dedicated their lives to the topic and come to the opposite conclusion? How do you explain that? Jacques Vallee started out believing in aliens and after decades of hands on research came to the conclusion they were not alien phenomena.


Go ahead and believe in aliens, it makes no difference to me. But Hellyer is a pathetic bastion for evidence.